1)THE WORDS OF A SHECHIV MERA

(a)(Mishnah - R. Elazar): If one declares how to divide his estate, whether he is healthy or Shechiv Mera, land is acquired only through a document, money or Chazakah (using the land like an owner). One acquires Metaltelim (movable property) by taking them to his premises;

(b)Chachamim say, both land and Metaltelim (of a Shechiv Mera) are acquired through his words.

1.Chachamim: A case occurred in which the mother of Bnei Rochel was sick. She said 'give my very expensive pin to my daughter', and Chachamim fulfilled her words!

2.R. Elazar: Bnei Rochel were terrible sinners. Chachamim fined them by giving the pin to her daughter.

(c)The first Tana (of the previous Beraisa) holds like R. Elazar. R. Nasan and R. Yakov agree with this, and also say that there is no Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased;

(d)'Some say' hold like Chachamim of the Mishnah (that the words of a Shechiv Mera acquire);

(e)R. Yehudah ha'Nasi holds like R. Elazar, but there is a Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased;

(f)Chachamim say to split the money. They are unsure (whether the Halachah follows R. Elazar or Chachamim of the Mishnah, and whether or not there is a Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased);

(g)Chachamim of Bavel say, it is best to leave it to the whim of the Shali'ach.

(h)R. Shimon ha'Nasi teaches how they ruled in an actual case

(i)Question: Was R. Shimon ha'Nasi the Nasi, or did R. Shimon say 'the Nasi said...'? (Tosfos - we never heard that R. Shimon was Nasi, therefore we suspect that perhaps the Mishnah is abbreviated.)

(j)Answer: Rav Yosef said that the Halachah follows R. Shimon ha'Nasi. (This shows that he was the Nasi.)

(k)Rejection: We can also ask about what Rav Yosef meant! (Perhaps he rules like R. Shimon said in the name of the Nasi, and he merely cited the Beraisa.)

1.The question is unresolved.

(l)(Rav Yosef): The Halachah follows R. Shimon ha'Nasi.

(m)Question: We hold that the words of a Shechiv Mera acquire!

(n)Answer: Rav Yosef explains that Reuven is healthy (like we originally explained the Beraisa).

(o)Question: R. Shimon ha'Nasi said that the money goes to Reuven's heirs. We hold that it is a Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased!

(p)Correction: The Beraisa should say, R. Shimon ha'Nasi says... to Ploni's heirs.

PEREK HA'MEVI 2

2)A PARTIAL DECLARATION

(a)(Mishnah): In the following cases, a Get from Chutz la'Aretz is Pasul:

1.The Shali'ach said 'in front of me it was written, but not signed; 'in front of me it was signed, but not written'; 'in front of me it was totally written, and half was signed'; or, 'in front of me it was totally signed, and half was written.'

(b)If one Shali'ach says 'it was written in front of me', and another Shali'ach says 'it was signed in front of me', it is Pasul;

(c)If two Sheluchim say 'it was written in front of us', and another Shali'ach says 'it was signed in front of me', it is Pasul;

(d)R. Yehudah says, it is valid.

(e)If one Shali'ach says 'it was written in front of me', and two Sheluchim say 'it was signed in front of us', it is valid.

(f)(Gemara) Question: We already learned that the Shali'ach must say 'it was written and signed in front of me'!

(g)Answer: If only for that Mishnah, one might have thought that it should be said, but the Get is valid even if he did not say it. Our Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

(h)(Mishnah): If he said 'in front of me, it was totally signed, and half was written', the Get is Pasul.

(i)Question: Which half was written in front of him?

1.Suggestion: The first half was in front of him.

2.Rejection: R. Elazar taught that it suffices to see the first line written Lishmah!

(j)Answer: Rather, he saw the second half.

(k)(Mishnah): If he said 'it was totally written, and half was signed, in front of me', it is Pasul.

(l)Opinion #1 (Rav Chisda): Even if two people testify about the signature that the Shali'ach did not see, it is Pasul;

1.The Kiyum must be totally like standard Kiyum of a Get (two witnesses about each signature), or totally like the enactment of Chachamim.

(m)Objection (Rava): If one person (the Shali'ach) would testify about the second signature, the Get would be valid. Now that two testify about it, can it be Pasul?!

15b----------------------------------------15b

(n)Opinion #2 (Rava): Even if the Shali'ach and another person testify about the other signatures, it is Pasul.

1.This is a decree, lest people think that we can be Mekayem other documents similarly, i.e. a witness confirms his own signature, and joins a second man to confirm the other signature.

2.This Kiyum is Pasul, since three fourths of it relies on one witness.

(o)Objection (Rav Ashi): If one person (the Shali'ach) would say everything (that he saw both signatures), the Get would be valid. Now that two testify about it, can it be Pasul?!

(p)Opinion #3 (Rav Ashi): Even if the Shali'ach is the other witness, it is Pasul.

1.The Kiyum must be totally like standard Kiyum of a Get, or totally like the enactment of Chachamim.

(q)(Mishnah): If he said 'it was totally written, and half was signed, in front of me', it is Pasul.

(r)Question: Does anyone testify about the other signature?

1.Suggestion: No.

2.Rejection: When one Shali'ach says 'it was written in front of me', and another Shali'ach says 'it was signed in front of me', each testifies about the entire Get, yet it is Pasul. Here, there is testimony about only half the signatures, there is no need to teach that it is Pasul!

(s)Answer: (We must say that a second witness testifies about the second signature.) The Mishnah teaches like Rava or Rav Ashi.

(t)Question: This refutes Rav Chisda. (If it were Pasul even when two witnesses testify about the second signature, the Mishnah should have taught this!)

1.Counter-question (Rav Chisda): Why does the Mishnah teach 'it was written, but not signed, in front of me?' The Seifa disqualifies even if it was written and half-signed in front of him!

2.Answer: Indeed, the Reisha could be learned from the Seifa, which teaches a bigger Chidush.

(u)Answer: Also here, the Reisha could be learned from the Seifa, which teaches a bigger Chidush!

3)OTHER THINGS THAT DO OR DO NOT JOIN

(a)(Rav Chisda): If a ditch five Tefachim deep is next to a wall five Tefachim tall, they do not join to be considered a wall;

1.A wall must be 10 Tefachim below ground (e.g. the edge of a pit) or 10 Tefachim above ground.

(b)(Mereimar): If a ditch five Tefachim deep is next to a wall five Tefachim tall, they join to be considered a wall.

(c)The Halachah follows Mereimar.

(d)Question (Ilfa): Can hands become Tahor half-way?

1.Question: What is the case?

i.Suggestion: Two people wash their hands from one Revi'is (the bare minimum to wash hands).

ii.Rejection (Mishnah): One Revi'is suffices for one or two people to wash their hands. (Ilfa would not be unsure about this!)

2.Answer #1: Rather, he washed one hand at a time.

3.Rejection (Mishnah): If one pours water on one hand and immerses the other (in a river), his hands are Tahor (even though he washed one at a time)!

4.Answer #2: Rather, he washed half of his hand, and then the other half.

(e)Question: R. Yanai taught that hands do not become Tahor half-way!

(f)Answer #1: Ilfa asks about when there is still liquid Tofe'ach (wet) on he first half when he washes the second half. R. Yanai discusses when the first half dried before washing the second.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF